Child Care (Tax Relief)

Vincent Cable: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will estimate the cost of providing tax relief to employees who receive financial support from their employers to buy childcare services; and if he will make a statement.

Dawn Primarolo: holding answer 14 December 2004
	I refer the hon. Member to page 6 of the "Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report" and "Financial Statement and Budget Report 2004 1 " [HC 301].
	1 This page can be accessed at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/7A8/DF/bud04 cha l90.pdf

Gross Domestic Produce (Wandsworth)

Tom Cox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the gross domestic product of the London borough of Wandsworth has been in each of the last three years.

Stephen Timms: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 16 December 2004
	As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about GDP for the London Borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years (205913).
	The London Borough of Wandsworth is in the Inner London West (NUTS3 area), which is currently the lowest geographic level at which Gross Value Added 1 (GVA) is published. The latest published information is for 2001.
	The estimates in the table below are based on the regional Gross Value Added 1 (GVA) estimates published in December 2003. These are available on the National Statistics website at: htlp://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournalGVA NUTS3 Methods and Background.pdf
	
		
			   Year Gross value added (GVA)(10) for Inner London West (NUTS3 area) at current basic prices 1995 to 2001 (£ million) 
		
		
			 1995 42,560 
			 1996 45,804 
			 1997 50,146 
			 1998 54,903 
			 1999 58,319 
			 2000 61,681 
			 2001 65,426 
		
	
	(10) Information presented here is Gross Value Added (GVA) which is Gross Domestic Product (GDP) less taxes (plus subsidies) on products.

Retirement

David Drew: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people retired in each year group in the last year for which figures are available.

Stephen Timms: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. David Drew, dated 16 December 2004
	The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about retired people. I am replying in his absence. (204909)
	The available information, shown in the attached table, is based on those people who described themselves as retired in the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and who a year earlier were in employment. The table relates to people interviewed in the LFS during the three months ending in May 2004. The figures are shown for age groups defined by age at the time of LFS interview. Information about exact age at retirement is not available.
	The estimates for the Labour Force Survey are, as with any statistical sample survey, subject to sampling variability.
	
		People who retired during the past year by age(11) three months ending in May 2004, United Kingdom—not seasonally adjusted Thousand
		
			  Men Women Total 
		
		
			 16 and over 120 127 247 
			 16–49 (12)— 1 1 
			 50 (12)— (12)— 1 
			 51 (12)— (12)— 2 
			 52 (12)— 1 3 
			 53 2 (12)— 3 
			 54 1 2 3 
			 55 3 2 5 
			 56 3 4 7 
			 57 4 4 7 
			 58 2 (12)— 3 
			 59 3 5 8 
			 60 10 33 43 
			 61 6 7 13 
			 62 5 10 16 
			 63 4 10 14 
			 64 6 6 12 
			 65 33 14 47 
			 66 9 5 13 
			 67 6 5 11 
			 68 3 3 5 
			 69 4 2 7 
			 70 2 3 5 
			 70 and over 12 6 18 
		
	
	(11) People who retired during the past year are defined as those who described themselves as retired in the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and were employed one year earlier. Age is defined as age at interview in the LFS.
	(12) Estimates not shown as they are potentially disclosive.
	Note:
	Some of these estimates are based on very small sample sizes and are subject to a higher degree of sampling variability. They should therefore be treated with caution.
	Source:
	ONS, Labour Force Survey

Democratic Republic of Congo

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate his Department has made of the number of people hiding in the forests of Pinga and Walikale in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo following the recently reported increase in violence in the region; what assessment he has made of the provisions for humanitarian assistance (a) in and (b) close to the forests of Pinga and Walikale; and if he will make a statement.

Hilary Benn: On 4 December, the UN Office for the Co-Ordination of Humanitarian Assistance (UNOCHA) reported that an NGO had estimated that 46,000 people are displaced in the forests around Pinga and Walikale as a result of recent fighting. DFID has provided £466,832 to UNOCHA for their Rapid Response Fund to help strengthen the capacity of humanitarian organisations for the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance to the most affected populations in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo; and £2 million to UNICEF for their Rapid Response Capacity for Emergency Situations to provide flexible relief support in the sectors of non-food items, water and sanitation, health, education and nutrition.
	DFID has also committed £490,000 to Christian Relief Network, an NGO, for the rehabilitation of the hospital and supporting enterprises in Pinga, which should help to restore life saving primary and secondary health services for 150,000 people. This rehabilitation also has a peacebuilding effect by giving some sign of a peace dividend; it has also so far created job opportunities for 180 people. 130 of these represent unskilled manual labour, and are mainly recruited from local Ma- Ma- groups.

Arts Funding

Neil Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the value at 1997 prices was of Government support in (a) 1996–97 and (b) 2003–04 to (i) the arts and (ii) opera.

Estelle Morris: Exchequer funding for the arts is channelled through Arts Council England (ACE). ACE's total arts investment and total opera investment for the years requested is as follows:
	
		
			   £ 
			  Total arts council investment Total arts council investment in opera 
		
		
			 1996–97 Total investment 185,133,000 30,233,082 
			 2003–04 Total investment 310,455,000 41,684,401 
			 2003–04 at 1996–97 prices 261,238,569 35,076,173

School Transport

John Thurso: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 
	(1)  how many and what percentage of trips to school by five to eight year olds were by bus in the latest year for which figures are available; and what proportion of these were (a) under two miles and (b) two miles and over, broken down by region;
	(2)  how many and what percentage of trips to school by nine to 16-year-olds were by bus in the latest year for which figures are available; and what proportion of these were (a) under three miles and (b) three miles and over, broken down by region.

Charlotte Atkins: The National Travel Survey provides the data requested. In 2002–03, five to eight year olds made on average 18 trips to school by bus per year. This was 6 per cent. of all school trips. Of the school trips by bus, 31 per cent. were under two miles and 69 per cent. were two miles or above. Figures for regions cannot be provided because of the small number of primary school children that travel to school by bus.
	The following table shows data for nine to 16-year-olds. The sample sizes are too small to provide reliable estimates for the North East and Wales.
	Numbers of trips are averaged over all children. Bus includes local and private school buses. Figures exclude trips over 50 miles.
	
		Trips to and from school 2002–03 Percentage trips
		
			  9–16 years 
			 Percentage of those trips by bus 
			 Regional Bus trips per child per year All trips per child per year Percentage of trips by bus Under three miles Three miles and over 
		
		
			 North East — — — — — 
			 North West 77 323 24 43 57 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber 65 328 20 27 73 
			 East Midlands 89 303 29 36 64 
			 West Midlands 73 314 23 29 71 
			 East 73 312 23 25 75 
			 London 85 311 27 40 60 
			 South East 79 334 24 18 82 
			 South West 79 326 24 22 78 
			 England 77 319 24 31 69 
			 Wales — — — — — 
			 Scotland 125 375 33 37 63 
			 Great Britain 85 325 26 31 69 
		
	
	Source:
	National Travel Survey, DfT

Energy Prices

Michael Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 
	(1)  what steps she is taking to minimise the effects of rising energy prices on the Scottish economy; and if she will make a statement;
	(2)  what steps her Department is taking to mitigate the impact of rising energy prices on the manufacturing sector of Scottish industry.

Mike O'Brien: Ofgem has now announced its conclusions on its investigation into gas price increases in 2003 and 2004. It has concluded that the main causes of rising UK gas prices are high oil prices feeding into gas prices and declining UK gas supplies. Ofgem is taking two courses of action. It is asking the European Commission to put more resources into making gas competition work, and is continuing to examine why some UK gas supplies did not reach the market.
	While the cost of gas to industry has been rising recently, this should be seen in the context of historical trends. In real terms gas prices for industrial users in 2003 were nearly 30 per cent. below their level in 1990 and well below their average over the last 30 years.
	Electricity prices have increased mainly as a result of the rise in gas prices and the recovery in wholesale prices from unsustainably low levels in 2002. Industrial electricity prices in 2003 were nearly 50 per cent. below their 1990 levels. Even after the latest increases we expect prices to remain competitive with those of our major EU competitors.
	The Department has recently published a report by Oxford Economic Research Associates which concluded that the UK has the most competitive energy markets in Europe. The report is available at:
	www.dti.gov.uk/energy/gas and electricity/competitiveness structure/psa final.pdf

Education Funding

David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the spend per head has been on primary school pupils in Leicestershire in each academic year since 1997–98.

Stephen Twigg: Local education authority expenditure data is collected by financial year. The information is contained within the following table:
	
		Expenditure per primary(14) pupil in Leicestershire LEA since 1997–98 2
		
			 £ 
			  Primary education(14) Pre-Primary and Primary education(14) 
			  School based expendtiture3, 4 per pupil 6 Combined LEA and school based expenditure(18) per pupil 6 School based expenditure3, 4 per pupil Combined LEA and school based expenditure(18) per pupil 6 
		
		
			 1997–98(20) n/a n/a 1,660 1,790 
			 1998–99(20) n/a n/a 1,810 1,990 
			  
			 1999–00(21) 1,930 2,070 2,000 2,140 
			 2000–01 2,080 2,220 2,160 2,300 
			 2001–02 2,260 2,420 2,420 2,590 
			  
			 2002–034, 9 2,190 n/a n/a n/a 
		
	
	n/a = Not available.
	(14) Expenditure was not distinguished between the pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of Section 52 for financial year 1999–2000.
	(15) 1999–2000 saw a change in data source when the data collection moved from the RO1 form collected by the ODPM to the Section 52 form from the DfES. 2002–03 saw a further break in the time series following the introduction of Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR) and the associated restructuring of the outturn tables. The change in sources is shown by the dotted line.
	(16) School based expenditure includes only expenditure incurred directly by the schools. This includes the pay of teachers and school-based support staff, school premises costs, books and equipment, and certain other supplies and services, less any capital items funded from recurrent spending and income from sales, fees and charges and rents and rates. This excludes the central cost of support services such as home to school transport, local authority administration and the financing of capital expenditure.
	(17) The 2002–03 school based expenditure calculation is broadly similar to the calculation in previous years. However, 2001–02 and earlier years includes all premature retirement compensation (PRC) and Crombie payments, mandatory PRC payments and other indirect employee expenses, while in 2002–03 only the schools element of these categories is included. In 2001–02 this accounted for approximately £70 per pupil of the England total, while the schools element of these categories accounted for approximately £50 per pupil of the England total in 2002–03. Also, for some LEAs, expenditure that had previously been attributed to the school sectors was reported within the LEA part of the form in 2002–03 and would therefore be excluded, though this is not quantifiable from existing sources.
	(18) The combined LEA and school based expenditure includes all expenditure on the education of children in LEA maintained establishments and pupils educated by the LEA other than in maintained establishments. This includes both school based expenditure and ail elements of central LEA expenditure except youth and community and capital expenditure from revenue (CERA). A sector breakdown for combined LEA and school based expenditure is not available in 2002–03.
	(19) Pupil numbers include only those pupils attending maintained establishments within the primary and pre-primary sectors and are drawn from the DfES Annual Schools Census. For 1999–2000 onwards, the combined LEA and school based expenditure for pre-primary also includes private voluntary independent (PVI) under five pupil numbers drawn from the Early Years Census. All pupil numbers are adjusted to be on a financial year basis.
	(20) Spending in 1997–98 reflects the transfer of monies from local government to central Government for the nursery vouchers scheme. These were returned to local government from 1998–99.
	(21) The 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of grant maintained schools to local authority maintenance.
	(22) School based expenditure in nursery schools was not recorded in 2002–03.
	Note: Figures are reported in cash terms and rounded to the nearest £10 as reported by the LEA.

Education Funding

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much her Department spent on (a) pre-schools (b) primary schools and (c) secondary schools in the London Borough of Southwark in each year since 1996–97; and how much was spent by the London Borough of Southwark from locally-generated revenue in each case.

Stephen Twigg: The Department funds Local Education Authorities and it is for them to decide how that funding is allocated within their area. Information relating to the spending on pre-primary, primary and secondary schools in Southwark Education Authority is provided in the table Locally generated revenue data is not collected by my Department.
	
		Combined LEA and school based net expenditure(23) by Southwark LEA 1996–97 to 2002–03(24) £
		
			  Pre-primary education 3 Primary education 3 Pre-primary and Primary education 3 Secondary education Overall LEA and school based expenditure 
		
		
			 1996–97 (28)— (28)— 57,031,000 25,076,000 107,868,000 
			 1997–98(26) (28)— (28)— 58,366,000 24,081,000 110,372,000 
			 1998–99(26) (28)— (28)— 61,397,000 27,151,000 117,307,000 
			 1999–2000(26) 4,256,000 71,167,000 75,423,000 39,843.000 133,853,000 
			 2000–01 5,427,000 75,595,000 81,022,000 41,101,000 136,564,000 
			 2001–02 2,999,000 94,595,000 97,593,000 58,621,000 171,473,000 
			 2002–031,5 (28)— (28)— (28)— (28)— 168,094,000 
		
	
	(23) The combined LEA and school based expenditure includes all expenditure on the education of children in LEA maintained establishments and pupils educated by the LEA other than in maintained establishments. This includes both school based expenditure and all elements of central LEA expenditure except youth and community and capital expenditure from revenue (CERA). A sector breakdown for combined LEA and school based expenditure is not available in 2002–03 due to the redesign of the Section 52 Outturn Table A where central LEA expenditure is no longer split by phase.
	(24) 1999–2000 saw a change in data source when the data collection moved from the RO1 form collected by the ODPM to the Section 52 form from the DfES. 2002–03 saw a further break in the time series following the introduction of Consistent Financial Reporting (CFR) and the associated restructuring of the outturn tables. The change in sources is shown by the dotted line.
	(25) Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of Section 52 for financial year 1999–2000.
	(26) Spending in 1997–98 reflects the transfer of monies from local government to central government for the nursery vouchers scheme. These were returned to local government from 1998–99. The 1999–00 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance.
	(27) In 2002–03 Southwark LEA were one of a group of LEAs whose net current expenditure was lower than expected. It is suspected that this was caused by the misreporting of funding in the income column of their 2002–03 Outturn Statement Table A.
	(28) Not available
	Note:
	Figures reported in cash terms are rounded to the nearest £1,000 as reported by the LEA.

Student Finance

Edward Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the projected expenditure is of the Student Loans Company on (a) income-contingent loans, (b) hardship loans and (c) mortgage loans for the academic years (i) 2001/02, (ii) 2002/03, (iii) 2003/04 and (iv) 2004/05.

Kim Howells: Data on SLC cash expenditure for income-contingent loans, hardship loans and mortgage style loans are shown in the table. Data are for students normally domiciled in the United Kingdom. The data on income contingent and mortgage style loans are included in the Statistical First Release (SLC SFR 01/2004) issued on 30 November.
	
		Expenditure by the Student Loans Company for UK domiciled students—academic years 2001/02 to 2004/05(31) £ million
		
			  Academic year 
			  2001/02 2002/03 (31)2003/04 (31)2004/05 
		
		
			 Income-contingent loans 2,455 2,617 2,705 (32)2,538 
			 Mortgage style loans 35 9 2 (33)— 
			 Hardship loans(34) 30 30 29 (33)— 
		
	
	(31) Provisional.
	(32) Expenditure is based on the position as at 14 November 2004. This will increase as late applications are processed.
	(33) Not available.
	(34) Hardship loans have been discontinued in 2004/05 following changes to the statutory and discretionary support system, including the introduction of the higher education grant.

Doctors Surgeries

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average list size is of general practitioners in (a) North Southwark and Bermondsey, (b) the London Borough of Southwark and (c) Greater London.

Stephen Ladyman: The information requested is collected for primary care trust (PCT) areas. The average list size of unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) in the PCTs in the South East London Strategic Health Authority area is shown in the table.
	
		Average list size of unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1 by PCT in London as at 30 September 2003 Number (headcount)
		
			Unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs) Patients of UPEs Average list size 
		
		
			  England  28,568 52,713,780 1,845 
			   
			  London  4,134 8,357,783 2,022 
			   
			 Q05 North Central London 705 1,423,532 2,019 
			  5A9 Barnet PCT 204 376,448 1,845 
			  5K7 Camden PCT 118 246,705 2,091 
			  5C1 Enfield PCT 138 289,642 2,099 
			  5C9 Haringey PCT 136 288,120 2,119 
			  5K8 Islington PCT 109 222,617 2,042 
			   
			 Q04 North West London 1,001 2,083,156 2,081 
			  5K5 Brent PCT 174 352,148 2,024 
			  5HX Ealing PCT 172 361,069 2,099 
			  5H1 Hammersmith and Fulham PCT 92 188,199 2,046 
			  5K6 Harrow PCT 134 222,615 1,661 
			  5AT Hillingdon PCT 127 258,940 2,039 
			  5HY Hounslow PCT 120 253,558 2,113 
			  5LA Kensington and Chelsea PCT 82 195,743 2,387 
			  5LC Westminster PCT 100 250,884 2,509 
			   
			 Q06 North East London 796 1,716,696 2,157 
			  5C2 Barking and Dagenham PCT 70 170,493 2,436 
			  5C3 City and Hackney PCT 133 271,202 2,039 
			  5A4 Havering PCT 108 248,029 2,297 
			  5C5 Newham PCT 126 305,285 2,423 
			  5NA Redbridge PCT 115 243,463 2,117 
			  5C4 Tower Hamlets PCT 114 220,739 1,936 
			  5NC Waltham Forest PCT 130 257,484 1,981 
			   
			 Q07 South East London 880 1,706,031 1,939 
			  TAK Bexley Care Trust 110 220,748 2,007 
			  5A7 Bromley PCT 167 316,819 1,897 
			  5A8 Greenwich PCT 108 253,156 2,344 
			  5LD Lambeth PCT 189 353,962 1,873 
			  5LF Lewisham PCT 149 279,822 1,878 
			  5LE Southwark PCT 157 281,524 1,793 
			   
			 Q08 South West London 752 1,428,368 1,899 
			  5K9 Croydon PCT 181 359,756 1,988 
			  5A5 Kingston PCT 93 177,468 1,908 
			  5M6 Richmond and Twickenham PCT 97 197,985 2,041 
			  5M7 Sutton and Merton PCT 207 383,794 1,854 
			  5LG Wandsworth PCT 174 309,365 1,778 
		
	
	(35) UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs.
	Note:
	Patient data have been revised from previously published figures.
	Source:
	Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

Health Funding (North-west)

Peter Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made for central funding of health per capita in (a) Burnley, (b) Lancashire and (c) the North West in each of the next three years.

Melanie Johnson: The table shows the 2005–06 revenue funding per un-weighted head of population for primary care trusts (PCTs) in the North West, which also covers Burnley and Lancashire.
	The 2006–07 and 2007–08 revenue allocations have not yet been determined. Work has commenced on the next round of allocations, covering the period 2006–07 to 2007–08. The next round of revenue allocations will be announced early in the new year.
	
		North West 2005–06: PCT allocations per un-weightedhead of population
		
			 PCT 2005–06 allocation per un-weighted 1 head of population (£) 
		
		
			 Ashton, Leigh and Wigan 1,185 
			 Bebington and West Wirral 1,165 
			 Birkenhead and Wallasey 1,278 
			 Blackburn with Darwen 1,197 
			 Blackpool 1,291 
			 Bolton 1,146 
			 Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale 1,181 
			 Bury 1,087 
			 Carlisle and District 1,081 
			 Central Cheshire 986 
			 Central Liverpool 1,405 
			 Central Manchester 1,383 
			 Cheshire West 1,036 
			 Chorley and South Ribble 986 
			 Eastern Cheshire 1,024 
			 Eden Valley 985 
			 Ellesmere Port and Neston 1,102 
			 Fylde 1,133 
			 Halton 1,268 
			 Heywood and Middleton 1,206 
			 Hyndburn and Ribble Valley 1,137 
			 Knowsley 1,319 
			 Morecambe Bay 1,121 
			 North Liverpool 1,394 
			 North Manchester 1,549 
			 Oldham 1,173 
			 Preston 1,237 
			 Rochdale 1,194 
			 Salford 1,346 
			 South Liverpool 1,376 
			 South Manchester 1,297 
			 South Sefton 1,244 
			 Southport and Formby 1,165 
			 St. Helens 1,195 
			 Stockport 1,051 
			 Tameside and Glossop 1,174 
			 Trafford North 1,162 
			 Trafford South 1,088 
			 Warrington 1,040 
			 West Cumbria 1,118 
			 West Lancashire 1,094 
			 Wyre 1,156 
		
	
	(36) Un-weighted population figures are supplied by the Office for National Statistics. Un-weighted head of population allocation figures have not been modified for age, need and cost in accordance with the formula which is used to inform allocations.

Health Services (Lewisham, Deptford)

Joan Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department has taken to improve primary healthcare services in the Lewisham, Deptford constituency since 1997.

Stephen Ladyman: As a result of the Department's "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative, responsibility for commissioning and improving health services has been delegated to primary care trusts (PCTs). The Department sets out a national framework and strategic health authorities ((SHAs) performance manage the PCTs to ensure these are adhered to.
	The November 2004 primary care access survey results show that, nationally, 99 per cent. of patients were able to be offered an appointment within two working days to see a general practitioner, and 99 per cent. of patients were able to be offered an appointment within one working day to see a primary care professional.
	Supplementary mLocally, information is not collected for parliamentary constituencies. However, the Department is able to confirm that recent investment in South East London primary care services includes:
	The development of a £2 million Walk-in Centre on Goodward Road in New Cross, Lewisham PCT.
	A planned local improvement finance trust project to deliver improved care facilities for the three boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham.

Local Authorities/Primary CareTrusts

Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what scores were achieved by each (a) local authority and (b) primary care trust in (i) Hampshire and the Isle of Wight and (ii) Easington against each indicator used to determine the spearhead group of local authorities and primary care trusts; and what the source of each score was.

Melanie Johnson: The information requested is shown in the table.
	The spearhead group is based upon the local authorities (LAs) which are in the "worst" fifth of areas for three or more of the following five factors:
	Male life expectancy at birth.
	Female life expectancy at birth.
	Cancer mortality rate, under 75s.
	Circulatory disease mortality rate, under 75s.
	Index of Multiple Deprivation 2004 (LA summary), average score.
	The "worst" fifth of areas are identified as those with the shortest, that is, lowest average life expectancy and highest mortality rates and deprivation scores.
	The spearhead group is identified in terms of LAs, using LA data. The spearhead group primary care trusts (PCTs) are identified as those PCTs that overlap geographically, either wholly or in part, with the spearhead group LAs. A PCT is not included in the spearhead group based on the data for the PCT, but based on the data for the LAs covering the same geographical area.
	The source of data on life expectancy at birth is the Office for National Statistics (ONS) at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=8841& More=n.
	The source of data on mortality in people under 75 is the ONS mortality data set via the national centre for health outcomes development compendium of clinical and health indicators—available to NHS users only.
	The indices of multiple deprivation are published by the office of the Deputy Prime Minister at http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm index.hcst?n= 4610&l=3.
	
		Hampshire, Isle of Wight and Easington rankings for the Spearhead Group
		
			  Data period 1995–97 
			  All cancers (persons aged under 75) Circulatory disease (persons aged under 75) Male life expectancy at birth Female life expectancy at birth 
			 Local authority Ranking(37) Score(38) Ranking Score Ranking Score Ranking Score 
		
		
			 Basingstoke and Deane 181 0 143 0 185 0 202 0 
			 East Hampshire 219 0 203 0 191 0 177 0 
			 Eastleigh 239 0 282 0 272 0 316 0 
			 Fareham 311 0 282 0 344 0 316 0 
			 Gosport 39 1 128 0 83 0 80 0 
			 Hart 282 0 296 0 301 0 258 0 
			 Havant 138 0 170 0 212 0 108 0 
			 Isle of Wight 297 0 191 0 166 0 258 0 
			 New Forest 275 0 311 0 301 0 311 0 
			 Portsmouth 76 0 81 0 99 0 74 0 
			 Rushmoor 199 0 243 0 166 0 160 0 
			 Southampton 70 1 116 0 99 0 135 0 
			 Test Valley 331 0 269 0 292 0 219 0 
			 Winchester 275 0 296 0 321 0 281 0 
			 Easington 22 1 1 1 31 1 4 1 
		
	
	
		
			  Indices of Multiple Deprivation (2004) 
			  Ranked by LA average score Score Number of times score is in'worst' fifth 
		
		
			 Basingstoke and Deane 311 0 0 
			 East Hampshire 326 0 0 
			 Eastleigh 309 0 0 
			 Fareham 328 0 0 
			 Gosport 189 0 1 
			 Hart 352 0 0 
			 Havant 137 0 0 
			 Isle of Wight 126 0 0 
			 New Forest 284 0 0 
			 Portsmouth 88 0 0 
			 Rushmoor 285 0 0 
			 Southampton 96 0 1 
			 Test Valley 315 0 0 
			 Winchester 336 0 0 
			 Easington 8 1 5 
		
	
	(37) All rankings shown in the table are out of 352 local authorities, of which those ranked 71 or lower fall in to the 'worst' fifth in England. City of London and the Scilly Isles are excluded from the ranking list because of small numbers.
	(38) Where the score is shown as "1" in the table then the ranking of the local authority falls in to the "worst" fifth in England, otherwise the score is zero.
	Note:
	The Spearhead Group is the group of local authorities that appear at least three times in the "worst' fifth.

Temporary Medical Staff

Paul Burstow: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total cost of temporary (a) nurses, (b) doctors and (c) staff in the NHS in (i) England and (ii) each primary care trust in each year since 1997.

John Hutton: The figures shown in the table relate to all costs of temporary staff employed in the national health service since 1997. Figures for 2003–04 are provisional and unaudited. Primary care trust (PCT) data are available from 2000 and information about temporary staffing spend has been placed in the Library.
	
		Hospital and community health services expenditure on temporary staff in England £
		
			  Temporary nurses(41) Temporary doctors(42) Total temporary staff 3 
		
		
			 1997–98 216,338,567 87,273,079 480,056,334 
			 1998–99 272,225,162 93,524,750 585,555,208 
			 1999–2000 361,656,683 106,125,019 730,080,550 
			 2000–01(44) 435,431,882 138,342,148 912,315,525 
			 2001–02 554,323,821 197,775,563 1,189,073,367 
			 2002–03 589,738,042 278,530,346 1,420,956,862 
			 2003–04(45) 524,675,129 344,759,550 1,465,853,757 
		
	
	(41) Temporary nurses = non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff.
	(42) Temporary doctors = non-NHS medical staff.
	(43) Total temporary staff = total non-NHS staff.
	(44) 2000–01 is the first year for which PCT data are available.
	(45) 2003–04 data are provisional.
	Sources:
	Annual financial returns of health authorities 1997–98 to 2001–02.
	Annual financial returns of strategic health authorities 2002–03 to 2003–04.
	Annual financial returns of NHS trusts 1997–98 to 2003–04.
	Annual financial returns of primary care trusts 2000–01 to 2003–04.

Travel Costs

Andrew Selous: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total travel costs to his Department have been for (a) Ministers, (b) special advisers and (c) officials for each year since 1997.

Rosie Winterton: holding answer 9 December 2004
	Since 1999, the Government publishes, on an annual basis, the total costs of all ministerial overseas travel and a list of all visits by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500. Copies of the lists are available in the Library. Travel costs for those special advisers who
	accompany their Ministers overseas are included in the annual list on Overseas Travel by Cabinet Ministers.
	The travel costs given for Ministers' offices include Ministers, their officials and special advisors where appropriate. The Department's finance systems do not maintain information by individual Minister or special advisor. Information on travel costs has not been maintained, separate from other business expenses, since April 2004.
	
		
			 Ministers' offices Expenditure (£) 
		
		
			 1997–98 376,376 
			 1998–99 427,970 
			 1999–2000 508,932 
			 2000–01 557,042 
			 2001–02 480,855 
			 2002–03 511,899 
			 2003–04 595,043 
			 1997–98 6,592,081 
			 1998–99 5,814,365 
			 1999–2000 7,080,034 
			 2000–01 7,295,706 
			 2001–02 7,972,843 
			 2002–03 7,607,890 
			 2003–04 8,211,382 
		
	
	All travel is undertaken in accordance with the guidelines set out in the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.